Introduction “Hydraulic fracturing involves the use of water pressure to create fractures in rock that allow the oil and natural gas it contains to escape and flow out of a well (Energy From Shale).” Fracking has served to extract natural gas and oil where other methods would not be as successful but many environmentalists argue that fracking is affecting the environment and our drinking supply of water. Although fracking is still a controversial topic, it provides Americans jobs, increases the economy of the region, and the natural gas and oil are cleaner and more affordable source of energy. The EPA recognizes that natural gas and oil are an essential part to help our planet survive but do not want fracking to come at an expense to the public health of the citizens or to the environment. Although there have been no intensive studies on the drinking water that could be linked to fracturing practices, many people believe it could be harmful to anyone that consumes the water. The EPA and other strong environmentalists are pushing towards more strict regulations on fracking.
There are chemicals that are known as carcinogens and toxins which is the main reason why not just environmentalist, but people are against fracking. Harmful chemicals are off putting to the public, and fracking uses many of them, "... carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, boric acids..." (Joe Hoffman). If fracking companies are ordered to find safer, and environmentally friendly alternatives, the public would be much more willing to support the continuation of fracking. With safer chemicals used in fracking, companies will receive more support from landowners, businesses, and citizens in general. Our environment is greatly affected by the fracking fluid used the penetrate the shale rock formations, " ... recently reported that the amount of chemically tainted soil from drilling waste increased nearly 5,100 percent over the past decade" (Steve Tilton).
Also the contamination that studies are seeing can be caused by many different things ranging from household items to dumping grounds. The process of hydraulic fracturing is a safe one that and the environmental “problems” it causes pale in comparison with the effort energy companies put forward to protecting the environment from the harmful chemicals used within their wells. The large amount of rules, regulations, and inspections levied by the companies who own the wells are the reasons why studies preformed keep coming up negative for groundwater contamination and other detrimental environment impacts that conventional wells and drilling methods may have.
The most controversial natural gas deposits in the United States are the Marcellus Shale along Pennsylvania and New York and the Bakken formation in North Dakota. Many environmentalists are strongly against the practice of fracking because of the ecological issues such as potential groundwater contamination. Meanwhile, those in the oil industries are strongly encouraging hydraulic fracturing because of the economic benefits that it will bring for the United States such as more jobs (Tuthill). Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is ethical because it will bring a tremendous economic and energy boost to the United States. Fracking will bring Though those who are against the practice of hydraulic fracturing are concerned mainly about the environmental risks, they will feel a lot more secure if natural gas companies disclose some information.
Hydraulic fracturing is one of the main producers of natural gas and oil. Although it is a main contributor, hydraulic fracturing causes more problems than what meets the eye. Hydraulic fracturing companies are not being fully honest with the public when it comes to the contaminants in the water, air, and soil. The hazardous chemicals used, those chemicals infecting and contaminating drinking water, and companies not regulating the fracturing are just some of the main problems caused by hydraulic fracturing. The chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing and the harm they cause is one of the biggest arguments in the anti-fracturing debate.
One of the primary goals of PR is to bridge the gap between the needs of the public and needs of a company or organization. Knowing that the very idea of drilling on the Continental shelf was a hot button issue, BP should have approached the endeavor with diligence. The findings in the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil spill and Offshore Drilling report could prove damaging tot he companies image because if reveals step by step the mistakes and agenda of the companies management. Halliburton and BP chose to use a form of cement known as “nitrogen foam cement” to address the instability they faced in placement of the pump on the fragile formation at Macondo. They ignored test that showed that cement would fail in the field.
There is no clear answer to the question on offshore drilling, because both sides have strong arguments. Because we are so dependent on oil, we need to get it from somewhere, and economically speaking, offshore drilling makes more sense. However, we also need to take the environment into consideration. This is why I strongly believe should utilize the precautionary principle and analyze the possible consequences on the environment before starting any new drilling sites. What also needs to happen is for people to become less dependent on oil, by developing alternative fuel sources and using more sustainable transportation methods.
Water is a necessity and cannot be abused in such a manner that leads to pollution. Water pollution is caused by a wide variety of ways, many stemming from human innovation. Hydrofracking is a major concern; it is a widely debated and heated topic; it is removing oil and gas from the ground. Dense shale must be drilled through to gain this oil. Along with drilling, explosions and toxic chemicals may be used.
While shale gas can help provide an endless supply of energy for America’s future the way of extracting the gas, fracking, poses a real threat to the environment and wildlife. Counter Argument There are those who support fracking as a means of extracting natural gas from shale deposits. They believe that fracking is a good thing and that it can have benefits on the environment. In their article Shale Gas: Fracking Great, The Economist suggest that the risks from fracking can be managed, “the risks from shale gas can be managed. Properly concreted well-shafts do not leak; regurgitants can be collected and made safe; preventing gas venting and flaring would limit methane emissions to acceptable levels” (Economist, 2012).
Research Essay: Hydraulic Fracturing In today’s world sources of energy are becoming increasingly more scarce which raises the question,” how will we obtain enough energy to sustain future generations?” Many experts believe that hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” is one alternative that will create a clean source of energy to fuel tomorrow. However, with all alternatives, research needs to be done in the field to fully identify both the positives and negatives of using that specific option. Many people do not know what hydraulic fracturing is or how it is done. “Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, forces natural gas and crude oil out of shale buried deep below the earth by using highly pressurized and treated water”. (“ Fracking: How It Works, Where It’s Done.” Para 1) The cracking of the shale by the water releases natural gas,which is obtained, liquefied, and used to power homes, businesses, and even cars.